Sign up for our Daily Newsletter and never miss a story.

In an alternate universe, President Hillary Rodham Clinton may have proposed sending her daughter, Chelsea Clinton, to head a U.S. delegation attending the closing ceremonies of the Winter Olympics, held in Pyeongchang, South Korea. But news of the proposal would have drawn swift condemnation from Republican politicians, conservative talk show hosts and even several Democrats, who would have pointed out that the tensions on the Korean peninsula should be handled by seasoned diplomats. Clinton would surely have backed down.

Not so in our current reality. President Donald J. Trump’s decision to send his daughter, Ivanka, to head the delegation to the closing ceremony raised barely an eyebrow, though she ended up acting in a diplomatic capacity. Oh, there were reports of quiet dissent in the White House, as some aides pointed out that Ivanka, a businesswoman, has no prior experience in government or foreign policy.

But her dad has normalized practices that were regarded as dishonorable and corrupt — if not outright illegal — down through generations of the American presidency. It has become apparent to most clear-eyed observers that Trump has pimped out the presidency, turning the Oval Office into a vehicle for an oligarchy. In other words, he uses his political power to enrich himself, his extended family and his closest friends.

Still, he retains the enthusiastic support of most Republican voters. While Trump’s overall approval rating remains historically low — about 39 percent, according to Gallup — 85 percent of Republican voters approve of his performance. Many of those voters don’t believe that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, and some simply don’t care if our longtime rival did intervene on Trump’s behalf.

Once upon a time, such attitudes would have been considered tantamount to treason, but that, clearly, was a different reality. In this one, Trump, as he said during the campaign, “could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters.”

From that perspective, Ivanka’s informal promotion to diplomat hardly merits more than a sideways glance. But the activities of her husband, Jared Kushner, are much more egregious. It’s been clear for some time that Kushner has repeatedly lied about his contacts with foreign governments because he has been forced to amend required disclosures. According to published reports, U.S. intelligence sources say officials of several foreign powers, including China, have privately discussed ways that they can manipulate Kushner to their advantage.

That is damning (and perhaps one reason that chief of staff John Kelly has denied Kushner the highest-level security clearance). The real estate business that Kushner’s family controls is deep in debt, and the business has repeatedly sought foreign investment.

Kushner has already used his White House influence, apparently, to shore up the family’s holdings. According to The New York Times, the Kushner family real estate company received two loans totaling more than $500 million from Apollo Global Management and Citigroup after executives from those firms had visited with Kushner in the White House. The Times also reports: “Shortly after Kushner Companies received the loan from Apollo, the private equity firm emerged as a beneficiary of the tax cut package that the White House championed.”

Though Kelly declined to extend Kushner’s top-level clearance, the son-in-law retains the power he needs: the ear of the president. Trump still gets briefings and will likely tell Kushner everything that’s in them. There is no reason to believe the president will respect the legal limits that cordon off top-level secrets.

Meanwhile, Special Counsel Robert Mueller continues an investigation that is sure to unearth yet more disreputable practices by top members of Team Trump — and possibly by the president himself. There is no public information that indicates that Trump or members of his campaign staff coordinated with Russia in its attempts to influence the election. But there is plenty of evidence that Russia intervened to diminish Clinton’s chances.

There is also plenty of evidence that several of Trump’s closest advisers had meetings with Russian officials during the campaign. Just last week, Rick Gates, who was Trump’s deputy campaign chairman, pleaded guilty to financial fraud and lying to investigators — the result of Mueller’s increased pressure.

In an alternate universe, Trump would be under fire from leading Republicans as well as Democrats, and he’d be writing his resignation speech. But not in this one.

Know First.

The stories you want. The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning.

With a deranged narcissist in the Oval Office and his lackey controlling the Department of Justice, there is no point in looking to the federal government to curb police violence. Instead, President Donald J. Trump will do everything in his power to encourage it. In the wake of protests over the murder of George Floyd, he has demanded that governors crack down on protestors: "You have to dominate. ... If you don't dominate, you're wasting your time," he told them.

Moreover, most local police authorities are under local control -- mayors, city councils, district attorneys, police chiefs, sheriffs. That's where the accountability for police misconduct begins.

<p>But Congress could take a significant step toward reining in that misconduct by passing a bill to end the practice of allowing the Pentagon to give surplus war equipment to local police departments. There is simply no good reason for police in any city -- from Washington to Wichita -- to roll down the streets in armored personnel carriers, armed with battering rams and grenade launchers. They are not going to war. American citizens are not enemy combatants.</p><p>Several Democrats have already announced their intention to introduce legislation to end the practice. Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, has said he would introduce such a measure as an amendment to the all-important annual defense policy bill -- which would give it a decent shot at passing since Republicans are deeply invested in the defense bill.</p><script async="" src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
<!-- NatMemo_Middle_Desktop_2 -->
<ins class="adsbygoogle NatMemo_Middle_Desktop_2" data-ad-client="ca-pub-8573325940152694" data-ad-slot="NationalMemo\/NatMemo_Middle_Desktop_2" style="display:inline-block;width:728px;height:90px"></ins>
<script>
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
</script><p>After protests broke out in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014 following the fatal shooting of Michael Brown by a police officer, local law enforcement authorities took to the streets in armored carriers, further inflaming tensions. They showed little inclination toward restraint or de-escalation. The same thing is occurring in cities around the country right now.</p><p>Off-loading surplus military hardware to local police departments was never a good idea. The practice started back during the 1990s as violent crime peaked and local and federal authorities were feverishly devoted to winning the so-called war on drugs. After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the program ramped up, doling out battlefield gear even to small towns no self-respecting terrorist ever heard of.</p><p>Law enforcement agents became enamored of images of themselves decked out like soldiers on special-ops missions. According to <em>The New York Times</em>, the website of a South Carolina sheriff's department featured its SWAT team "dressed in black with guns drawn, flanking an armored vehicle that looks like a tank and has a mounted .50-caliber gun."</p><p>Poor neighborhoods are subjected to the military-style hardware much more often than affluent ones. And the consequence of that sort of policing is often less safety, not more. When the police behave like an occupying force, the residents return the favor -- treating them with suspicion and contempt. That hardly makes it more likely that police will get the information they need to solve crimes.</p><p>The administration of President Barack Obama understood that and curbed the Pentagon program after Ferguson. In the final years of the Obama administration, the Pentagon reported that local law enforcement agencies had returned 126 tracked armored vehicles, 138 grenade launchers and 1,623 bayonets, the Times said. Pause for a moment just to consider that. Why would any police department -- even New York City's army of 36,000 officers -- need bayonets and grenade launchers? Once you implant in the heads of police officers the notion that they need battlefield gear, their use of violence against unarmed citizens escalates as a natural consequence.</p><script async="" src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>
<!-- NatMemo_Middle_Desktop_3 -->
<ins class="adsbygoogle NatMemo_Middle_Desktop_3" data-ad-client="ca-pub-8573325940152694" data-ad-slot="NationalMemo\/NatMemo_Middle_Desktop_3" style="display:inline-block;width:728px;height:90px"></ins>
<script>
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
</script><p>But guess what happened when Trump took office? He removed Obama's restraints on the Pentagon program, once again allowing local law enforcement agents to go to battle against the citizens they are sworn to protect. No surprise there. In 2017, Trump gave a speech in which he urged police officers not to worry about injuring a suspect during an arrest.</p><p>Police violence against black people is a problem as old as the nation itself. It didn't start with Trump's presidency and won't end when it's over. Rather, the racist culture that is embedded among so many law enforcement agencies showed itself clearly when major police unions enthusiastically backed Trump's election. When Trump is finally gone, the campaign to eradicate that culture can begin in earnest.</p>